1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to barrier mechanisms generally and, more particularly, but not by way of limitation, to novel compound barrier mechanisms for passageway control.
2. Background Art
Pedestrian control devices generally fall into categories such as rotating arm turnstile, a dropping arm, a rotating gate, a pocket panel, an open passageway with optical detectors, and others.
In the category of control devices with barriers such as glass panels, there are three primary types in common use.
The first type typically employs an opposed pair of opposed wedge-shaped “leaves”, their horizontal pivot axis falling towards the bottom of an enclosure. The leaves move in a single plane which is 90 degrees to the direction of passage. Disadvantages include an open wedge-shaped area below the leaves, of sufficient size such that when attempts are made to block larger passageways, the space left below is large enough to crawl through. Another disadvantage is that the rotating leaf is difficult to support and therefore easy to deflect in the direction of passage, typically resulting in its damage. Significantly, the rotating leaf unit is inefficient in its use of space in that the cabinet into which the leaf rotates must be at least as deep as the width of the leaf. Specifically, the overall width of a unit which supports two opposed leaves capable of blocking and clearing a 3′-0″ ADA passageway, is in excess of 6′-0″ in width inherently. Lastly, if a pedestrian inadvertently contacts the leaves as they are nearly closed, the risk of injury is significant as their motion is 90 degrees to the direction of passage and it may be too late to drive them out of the way, resulting in pedestrian injury. See FIG. 1a, where (100) are the Cabinets, (101) are the Retractable Leaves, and (102) is the Wedge Shaped Area below the leaves. It will be understood that Leaves (101) retract into Cabinets (100). Dimensions shown in FIG. 1a are provided to show the disadvantages of this type of barrier mechanism when blocking a wide passageway.
The second type of panel barrier unit typically places a pair of opposed panels or swing gates in a “saloon door” type fashion. Often bi-directional in their rotation about a fixed vertical axis, these panels are intended to always pivot away from the pedestrian. However, it is common that pedestrians in a two-way traffic situation are preoccupied or unwilling to wait their turn, and wind up walking into the edge of a panel or bar that is coming toward them. Since the pivot axis is fixed, the usual outcome of contact is pedestrian injury. There is also the instance where two-way traffic involves a percentage of wheelchair traffic. Since the swinging panels require a significant portion of the lane to swing out of the way, it is common that a swinging panel will crash into the footrests on the wheelchair. See FIG. 1b, where (103) are the Cabinets, (104) are the Saloon Doors, or Panels, (105) indicates the Significant Portion of the Lane to swing out of the way, and (106) indicates the Lane or Passageway.
The third type of panel barrier unit typically employs a pair of opposed translating panels in “pocket door” type fashion. It has the inherent disadvantage of the leaf unit in that it is difficult to properly support the panels, particularly full height ones, without an unusually large cabinet. It is common, primarily for aesthetics, that the majority of support occurs “invisibly” in the waist high cabinet, further stressing the design. There is a further issue that, when attempts are made to completely secure an entrance, these units require an additional fixed panel above the wide cabinet to preclude passage between two adjacent lanes. See FIG. 1c, where (107) are the Cabinets, (108) are the Fixed panels, (109) are the Pocket Doors, or Panels, and (110) indicates the Passageway. The dimensions shown in FIG. 1c are provided to show that completely securing the overall width of a unit which supports two pocket doors capable of blocking and clearing a 3′-0″ ADA passageway, is in excess of 6′-0″ in width inherently and the unit requires the Fixed Panels (108) to block an otherwise open space.
Common to all of the above, based on customer feedback, is a distinct lack of reliability across the entire spectrum of existing panel or swing gate designs as manufactured by others.
Further common to all of the above, is the need, at times, for expensive additional fabrications to make up the difference between the outer dimension of the units and the inside dimensions of the hallway or entryway. If the space to be secured is substantially wider than the unit, the typical method is a knee or full height wall on one or both sides of the unit. Since this involves attachment to the finished floor, or the finished wall, or the unit, at times of construction this can become an expensive last minute fabrication at considerable expense.
Yet another disadvantage of prior art devices is the difficulty, time, and expense associated with replacement of the unique glass panels, in the event of breakage. In most, if not all cases, significant disassembly of the unit is required, as well as waiting for the manufacturer's unique replacement panel. Specialized tools and skills are also typically required, increasing costs to the end user.
Accordingly, it is a principal object of the present invention to provide a barrier mechanism that is a reliable means of controlling a passageway.
It is a further object of the present invention to provide such a barrier mechanism that does not require a cabinet equal to approximately 50% of the passageway width.
It is an additional object of the present invention to provide such a barrier mechanism that does not present an immoveable leading edge to a person attempting to pass “in the wrong direction”.
It is another object of the present invention to provide such a barrier mechanism that does not require the moving barrier to consume a large portion of the lane in the direction of passage.
It is yet a further object of the invention to provide such a barrier mechanism that does not inherently limit the supporting structure.
It is yet an additional object of the invention to provide such a barrier mechanism that does not require an additional panel above the cabinet in order to close the space between adjacent panel lanes.
It is yet another object of the invention to provide such a barrier mechanism that does not require expensive fabrications attached to finished surfaces to secure adjacent open space.
Yet a further object of the present invention is to provide such a barrier mechanism that does not require disassembly, special tools, skills, or a manufacturer-only replacement panel in the event of glass breakage of a panel.
Other objects of the present invention, as well as particular features, elements, and advantages thereof, will be elucidated in, or be apparent from, the following description and the accompanying drawing figures.